Seems like I vaguely recall some colorful expression for conveying a rhetorical failure to complete a logical argument. Something along the lines of “failing to tie the knot” or “complete the circle,” although those possess other established definitions. Am I hallucinating or did someone perhaps misapply those expressions? Or is there a more apropos idiom?
EDIT: I’ve been asked to edit my question if I wish to clarify any distinction w.r.t. an extant question which seeks terms that apply to leaps in logic that form an identifiable logical fallacy such as a meretricious, eristic, specious, sophistic argument could be a form of cherry picked syllogistic fallacy, tautology or perhaps even strawmanning. Whereas, my question seeks a term that applies to a failure to even complete and put forth a fully formed logical argument aka contingency, which could then be judged to be a fallacy or not. Without a clearly articulated logical proposition, one is adrift trying to figure out what the attempted logical assertion might actually be. The leap in my case being not a specifically identified fallacy of logic, but for example a possibly serpentine, desultory, circumlocutory narrative that may lull the naive into thinking some enumerated, identifiable (aka cogent) argument was presented when it wasn’t.
The motivating case for my question was a comment I wrote about a recent CNBC video The Recession Has Finally Begun, But Only For America's Rich | CNBC:
Where is the aggregate, hard data demonstrating the spending (and investment activities?) of high net worth individuals predominately drive the GDP? You do state the power-law distribution driven Pareto effect at 6 minutes that the top 20% BY INCOME drive half the consumer spending, but your analysis is too crude. What if the lower 80% are increasing their spending due to government handouts and increases in the minimum wage? Or maybe the high income earners’ spending affects some sectors of disproportionately (e.g. discretionary, luxury goods and financed investment assets including venture capital startups) compared to the sectors that the lower 80% prop up (e.g. staples such as food). If the government is borrowing and spending like no tomorrow, maybe the flood of money into spending may just continue defying conventional (incomplete logic) expectations. Or at least you should nuance the argument more as to how we may end up in stagflation with the inflation in non-discretionary and stagnation in discretionary or speculative assets at least until the Fed is forced to turn on the cheap money spigot again but they will only do so when the money printing can be sanitized by trapping all speculation inside of “not your keys, not your tangible, not your assets” capital controls aka central bank digital currencies and the end of cash (except for the USD because that would end it as the reserve currency if they can cancel tangible dollars). Another factor is you cite high income but that is the upper middle class, not the uber high net worth. High net worth individuals spend a very small percentage of their net worth on consumption (other than maybe big ticket maintenance such as their villas, yachts and private planes). Your ostensibly ignoratio elenchi, thought-terminating cliché, meretricious, rhetorical narrative fails to articulate a coherent and complete thesis that can be coherently applied to predicting our future. You fail to logically tie the knot or complete the circle. Your possibly eristic, specious, sophistic argument could be a form of cherry picked syllogistic fallacy. You fail to articulate a replete, coherent logical contingency thus your statements could be a tautology. I think you (CNBC) need to undertake some philosophy courses in logic.
 My potentially congenital jaundice liver, adult NAFLD, Tuberculosis, endocrine dysfunction driven brain-fog apophenia kicking in again perhaps.